Structural coverage of the proteome for pharmaceutical applications

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 22, Issue 12, 2017, Pages 1792-1799

  Somody, Joseph C ^a   MacKinnon, Stephen S ^a   Windemuth, Andreas ^a  

^a Cyclica Inc   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CELL NUCLEUS RECEPTOR; G PROTEIN COUPLED RECEPTOR; MEMBRANE PROTEIN; PHOSPHOTRANSFERASE; PROTEINASE; PROTEOME;

COMPUTER MODEL; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG PROTEIN BINDING; HUMAN; HUMAN GENOME; KNOWLEDGE BASE; MOLECULAR DOCKING; NONHUMAN; POLYPHARMACOLOGY; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; REVIEW; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; PROTEIN CONFORMATION;

DRUG DISCOVERY; HUMANS; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEOME;

EID: 85029159932     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: 18785832     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2017.08.004     Document Type: Review

References (62)

1. Heatley, N.G., Alexander Fleming. The man and the myth. Med. Hist. 28:4 (1984), 453–455.
2. Mehta, A., Aspirin. Chem. Eng. News Arch. 83:25 (2005), 46–47.
3. Jones, L.H., Bunnage, M.E., Applications of chemogenomic library screening in drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 16:4 (2017), 285–296.
4. An, W.F., Tolliday, N., Cell-based assays for high-throughput screening. Mol. Biotechnol. 45:2 (2010), 180–186.
5. Fischer, E., Einfluss der Configuration auf die Wirkung der Enzyme. Ber. Dtsch. Chem. Ges. 27 (1894), 2985–2993.
6. Drews, J., Drug discovery: a historical perspective. Science 287:5460 (2000), 1960–1964.
7. Mestres, J., et al. The topology of drug-target interaction networks: implicit dependence on drug properties and target families. Mol. Biosyst., 5(9), 2009, 1051.
8. Zhou, H., et al. Comprehensive prediction of drug-protein interactions and side effects for the human proteome. Sci. Rep., 5(1), 2015, 11090.
9. Savitski, M.M., et al. Tracking cancer drugs in living cells by thermal profiling of the proteome. Science, 346(6205), 2014, 1255784.
10. Lecca, P., Re, A., Network-oriented approaches to anticancer drug response. Kasid, U., Clarke, R., (eds.) Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 1513, 2017, 101–117.
11. Schrattenholz, A., et al. Systems biology approaches and tools for analysis of interactomes and multi-target drugs. Kasid, U., Clarke, R., (eds.) Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 662, 2010, 29–58.
12. Vincent, F., et al. Developing predictive assays: the phenotypic screening ‘rule of 3’. Sci. Transl. Med., 7(293), 2015, 293ps15.
13. Lee, J., Bogyo, M., Target deconvolution techniques in modern phenotypic profiling. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 17:1 (2013), 118–126.
14. Jenkins, J.L., et al. In silico target fishing: predicting biological targets from chemical structure. Drug Discov. Today Technol. 3:4 (2006), 413–421.
15. Koutsoukas, A., et al. From in silico target prediction to multi-target drug design: current databases, methods and applications. J. Proteomics 74:12 (2011), 2554–2574.
16. Rognan, D., Proteome-scale docking: myth and reality. Drug Discov. Today Technol. 10:3 (2013), e403–e409.
17. Rognan, D., Chemogenomic approaches to rational drug design. Br, J. Pharmacol. 152:1 (2007), 38–52.
18. Yakimchuk, K., Protein receptor-ligand interaction/binding assays. Mater. Methods, 1(199), 2011.
19. Gaulton, A., et al. ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 40:D1 (2012), 1100–1107.
20. Wang, Y., et al. PubChem BioAssay: 2017 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 45:D1 (2017), D955–D963.
21. Wishart, D.S., DrugBank: a comprehensive resource for in silico drug discovery and exploration. Nucleic Acids Res. 34:90001 (2006), D668–D672.
22. Anderson, A.C., The process of structure-based drug design. Chem. Biol. 10:9 (2003), 787–797.
23. Congreve, M., et al. Keynote review: structural biology and drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 10:13 (2005), 895–907.
24. Lounnas, V., et al. Current progress in structure-based rational drug design marks a new mindset in drug discovery. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J., 5(6), 2013, e201302011.
25. Caraus, I., et al. Detecting and overcoming systematic bias in high-throughput screening technologies: a comprehensive review of practical issues and methodological solutions. Brief. Bioinform. 16:6 (2015), 974–986.
26. Gao, Z., et al. PDTD: a web-accessible protein database for drug target identification. BMC Bioinformatics, 9(1), 2008, 104.
27. Chen, Y.Z., Zhi, D.G., Ligand-protein inverse docking and its potential use in the computer search of protein targets of a small molecule. Proteins 43:2 (2001), 217–226.
28. Wallach, I., et al. A structure-based approach for mapping adverse drug reactions to the perturbation of underlying biological pathways. PLoS One, 5(8), 2010, e12063.
29. Xie, L., Bourne, P.E., A robust and efficient algorithm for the shape description of protein structures and its application in predicting ligand binding sites. BMC Bioinformatics, 8(4), 2007, S9.
30. Dai, S.-X., et al. Proteome-wide prediction of targets for aspirin: new insight into the molecular mechanism of aspirin. PeerJ, 4, 2016, e1791.
31. Minie, M., et al. CANDO and the infinite drug discovery frontier. Drug Discov. Today 19:9 (2014), 1353–1363.
32. Molinski, S.V., et al. Computational proteome-wide screening predicts neurotoxic drug-protein interactome for the investigational analgesic BIA 10-2474. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 483:1 (2017), 502–508.
33. Wüthrich, K., The way to NMR structures of proteins. Nat. Struct. Biol. 8:11 (2001), 923–925.
34. Perkins, S.J., et al. Atomistic modelling of scattering data in the Collaborative Computational Project for Small Angle Scattering (CCP-SAS). J. Appl. Crystallogr. 49:6 (2016), 1861–1875.
35. Bai, X.-C., et al. How cryo-EM is revolutionizing structural biology. Trends Biochem. Sci. 40:1 (2015), 49–57.
36. Koutsoukas, A., et al. From in silico target prediction to multi-target drug design: current databases, methods and applications. J. Proteomics 74:12 (2011), 2554–2574.
37. Berman, H.M., et al. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 28:1 (2000), 235–242.
38. Dorn, M., et al. Three-dimensional protein structure prediction: methods and computational strategies. Comput. Biol. Chem. 53 (2014), 251–276.
39. Bordogna, A., et al. Predicting the accuracy of protein-ligand docking on homology models. J. Comput. Chem. 32:1 (2011), 81–98.
40. Marks, D.S., et al. Protein 3D structure computed from evolutionary sequence variation. PLoS One, 6(12), 2011, e28766.
41. Kamisetty, H., et al. Assessing the utility of coevolution-based residue-residue contact predictions in a sequence- and structure-rich era. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110:39 (2013), 15674–15679.
42. Ovchinnikov, S., et al. Protein structure determination using metagenome sequence data. Science, 355(6322), 2017.
43. Edwards, A., Large-scale structural biology of the human proteome. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 78:1 (2009), 541–568.
44. Mistry, J., et al. An estimated 5% of new protein structures solved today represent a new Pfam family. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 69:11 (2013), 2186–2193.
45. Schwede, T., Protein modelling: what happened to the protein structure gap?. Structure 21:9 (2013), 1531–1540.
46. Apweiler, R., et al. UniProt: the Universal Protein knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res. 32 (2004), D115–D119.
47. The UniProt Consortium, Activities at the Universal Protein Resource (UniProt). Nucleic Acids Res., 42(D1), 2014.
48. Caufield, J.H., et al. Bacterial protein meta-interactomes predict cross-species interactions and protein function. BMC Bioinformatics, 18(1), 2017, 171.
49. Finn, R.D., et al. The Pfam protein families database: towards a more sustainable future. Nucleic Acids Res. 44:D1 (2016), D279–D285.
50. Walsh, I., et al. ESpritz: accurate and fast prediction of protein disorder. Bioinformatics 28:4 (2012), 503–509.
51. Santos, R., et al. A comprehensive map of molecular drug targets. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 16:1 (2016), 19–34.
52. Totrov, M., Abagyan, R., Flexible ligand docking to multiple receptor conformations: a practical alternative. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 18:2 (2008), 178–184.
53. Larsson, P., et al. Using multiple templates to improve quality of homology models in automated homology modeling. Protein Sci. 17:6 (2008), 990–1002.
54. Rasmussen, S.G.F., et al. Crystal structure of the human β2 adrenergic G-protein-coupled receptor. Nature 450:7168 (2007), 383–388.
55. Szklarczyk, D., et al. STITCH 5: augmenting protein-chemical interaction networks with tissue and affinity data. Nucleic Acids Res. 44:D1 (2016), D380–D384.
56. Kuhn, M., et al. STITCH 4: integration of protein-chemical interactions with user data. Nucleic Acids Res., 42, 2014, D1.
57. Keiser, M.J., et al. Relating protein pharmacology by ligand chemistry. Nat. Biotechnol. 25:2 (2007), 197–206.
58. Cobanoglu, M.C., et al. Predicting drug-target interactions using probabilistic matrix factorization. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53:12 (2013), 3399–3409.
59. Altae-Tran, H., et al. Low data drug discovery with one-shot learning. ACS Cent. Sci. 3:4 (2017), 283–293.
60. Arkin, M.R., et al. Small-molecule inhibitors of protein-protein interactions: progressing toward the reality. Chem. Biol. 21:9 (2014), 1102–1114.
61. Céol, A., et al. Genome and network visualization facilitates the analyses of the effects of drugs and mutations on protein-protein and drug-protein networks. BMC Bioinformatics 17:Suppl. 4 (2016), 1–9.
62. Gupta, M.K., Misra, K., A holistic approach for integration of biological systems and usage in drug discovery. Netw. Model. Anal. Health Inform. Bioinform., 5(1), 2016, 4.